Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Congress to look into restarting F-22 production

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Zinja View Post
    Any cost and time to resurrect an F-22 line will be child's play compared to the time it will take and the cost incured to build a 6th gen fighter that is planned to replace the F-22.

    USN is working on the autonomous tanker, USAF is working on its B-21. Both these programs (and whatever else is being hammered in the 'drones' world) will give pentagon the experience required to make a truly revolutionary 6th gen fighter to replace the F-22. Why don't they use these programs in the works to buy time to mature revolutionary technologies for the 6th gen replacement? In the meantime, ressurect the F-22 and revamp it with current mature techonologies. This will release pressure on mid 20s to mid 30s budgets as the new F-22s will stretch the current life of the fleet to beyond 70s, giving more time to mature 6th gen tech. A revamped F-22 possibly with 3D TV, modern processors, F-35 levels of data and sensor fussion, next gen power plant, side radars, would be more than a match for whatever adversaries can come up with before the advent of its replacement. Meanwhile, pushing the F-22 replacement further down means more time to mature technologies which will result in cheaper frames. Personally i really do hope (against hope) that congress succeeds in this new effort.
    Hell, just go with new build f-15SE's..... or even the latest version minus the stealth junk.. keep the conformal tanks for fuel (increased range vs internal stealthy misdilecarrige) update the engines to something in the thrust class as the F-35's (of if they are ready the new super efficient ones that are in development) integrate the communications data links that is currently an external pod that allows them to link up with f-22's and -35's and incorporate the irst tracking system that is also currently a pod....

    Not ideal, but effective. And available.

    Reduce r&d for the sixth gen fighter but keep it going and put funding elsewhere as needed until the F35 is up and running on budget.

    Comment


    • #17
      Here is a story with some numbers on cost per flight hours:

      Real Clear Defense - F-22 restart is bad idea

      To Summarize already the F-35 cost per flight hour is 2/3 and projected to eventually be 1/2 of the F-22 and that is comparing 2015 FY$ for F-35 to 2012 FY$ for F-22.

      This particular line picked up my attention:

      Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, suggested asking pilots who have flown the both the F-22 and the F-35 which they’d prefer to take into combat.
      Anyone know any pilot who has flown both that has voiced an opinion on that?

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't think it's quite fair to ask pilots whether they'd want to take the F35 or the F22 since the Raptro can do somethings in the kinematics area that the F35 simply can't do. Having it in the mix complicates the challenge facing adversaries considerably.

        Unfortunately, since production has ended, the costs of restarting production and flying more F22s have to be balanced against other urgent needs such as the B-21, especially now that we live in a world where adversaries are increasingly seeking to attack US forces at standoff range with advanced ballistic missiles.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by citanon View Post
          I don't think it's quite fair to ask pilots whether they'd want to take the F35 or the F22 since the Raptro can do somethings in the kinematics area that the F35 simply can't do. Having it in the mix complicates the challenge facing adversaries considerably.

          Unfortunately, since production has ended, the costs of restarting production and flying more F22s have to be balanced against other urgent needs such as the B-21, especially now that we live in a world where adversaries are increasingly seeking to attack US forces at standoff range with advanced ballistic missiles.
          If the US loosens export controls there would be a lot of allied money wanting raptors. Though this would impact the F-35 program but I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't know of one air force that can afford to keep that plane in the air for more an hour a month.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by citanon View Post
              I don't think it's quite fair to ask pilots whether they'd want to take the F35 or the F22 since the Raptro can do somethings in the kinematics area that the F35 simply can't do. Having it in the mix complicates the challenge facing adversaries considerably.
              Agreed, that's a total BS question. Two different aircraft designed for different roles, even allowing for overlap.
              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by citanon View Post
                I don't think it's quite fair to ask pilots whether they'd want to take the F35 or the F22 since the Raptro can do somethings in the kinematics area that the F35 simply can't do.
                It's a matter of picking the right tool for the job. If a pilot is tasked to perform Air Superiority or Interception mission, he'll likely prefer the Raptor. If he's asked to perform a Deep Strike or CAS mission, he'll want the Lightning II.

                That isn't to say that the F-22 can't sneak in and drop bombs, or that the F-35 can't shoot down enemy aircraft. They are both quite capable as multirole aircraft, but each has different strengths. You won't see any F-35's tooling around at 65,000 feet, and you won't see any F-22s shooting JSOW's, or JASSMs.
                Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 26 Apr 16,, 18:37.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                  Hell, just go with new build f-15SE's.....
                  Even F-15SEs cannot operate in contested airspace of a formidable foe with modern IADS. You need a system with truly 5th gen attibutes or more.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                    To Summarize already the F-35 cost per flight hour is 2/3 and projected to eventually be 1/2 of the F-22 and that is comparing 2015 FY$ for F-35 to 2012 FY$ for F-22.
                    I find it funny when people compare the cost of of maintaining an airframe that is now fixed at a finite number of 187 with zero prospects of ever increasing economies of scale, to a fighter with virtually an indefinite prospect of numbers of frames and the economies of scale that come with it. Go to a shop and and ask for a quote for 187 items and 4000+ and you see the difference in prices. This is just a false comparison.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                      Even F-15SEs cannot operate in contested airspace of a formidable foe with modern IADS. You need a system with truly 5th gen attibutes or more.
                      you have that.

                      the F-22.

                      Problem is, there aren't enough, and continuous deployments are only going to (somewhat needlessly) sap air frame hours/life expectancy.

                      Two Raptors deploy to Romania? Two.... I get the capabilities, but two is now a 'show of force'....?

                      F-15's with the data links and IRST integrated, conformal tanks for the range and loiter, added weapons stations for extra air-air missiles, maybe (if possible) upgraded engines, could probably be flying/in service in pretty short order.

                      It seems like numbers are the issue at the moment.

                      not enough raptors to go around, and no chance of replacing them.

                      the F-35 is gonna be awhile before it is truly combat ready.

                      so it may not be the ideal stop gap, but its cheaper than starting up the F-22 line, cheaper than a 6th gen replacement, and available a hell of a lot sooner.

                      and something easily deployed and something you don't mind racking up the flight hours on as much as an F-22.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                        Here is a story with some numbers on cost per flight hours:

                        Real Clear Defense - F-22 restart is bad idea

                        To Summarize already the F-35 cost per flight hour is 2/3 and projected to eventually be 1/2 of the F-22 and that is comparing 2015 FY$ for F-35 to 2012 FY$ for F-22.

                        This particular line picked up my attention:



                        Anyone know any pilot who has flown both that has voiced an opinion on that?

                        those cost per hour numbers have me wondering though.....

                        how much is the F-35 really flying, and what is it doing?

                        the F-22 has been around and is in use it seems quite a bit.

                        would that contribute to higher costs to maintain than a brand new airframe with low hours and limited use? (or are the flying F-35's really getting worked the same?)

                        also, were (or who?) are the numbers coming from?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                          Even F-15SEs cannot operate in contested airspace of a formidable foe with modern IADS. You need a system with truly 5th gen attibutes or more.
                          And whom would that foe be?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                            those cost per hour numbers have me wondering though.....

                            how much is the F-35 really flying, and what is it doing?

                            the F-22 has been around and is in use it seems quite a bit.

                            would that contribute to higher costs to maintain than a brand new airframe with low hours and limited use? (or are the flying F-35's really getting worked the same?)

                            also, were (or who?) are the numbers coming from?
                            The F35 has been flying a very tough testing and evaluation schedule. Not sure if those numbers are t&e numbers or a projection though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                              how much is the F-35 really flying, and what is it doing?
                              The F-35 fleet reached the 50,000 flight hour mark in Feb. 2016.

                              "Flight hours are divided into two main categories: Operational flying hours, flown by 155 jets delivered to six different nations, and System Development and Demonstration (SDD) flight test hours, flown by 18 aircraft assigned to the Integrated Test Forces at Edwards AFB, and NAS Pax River. Of the 50,000 hours, operational jets flew approximately 37,950 hours while SDD aircraft flew 12,050 hours. More than one third of the program’s flight hours were flown in 2015 alone. Among the three variants, approximately 26,000 hours were flown by the F-35A, 18,000 hours by the F-35B and 6,000 by the F-35C."

                              Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post
                              would that contribute to higher costs to maintain than a brand new airframe with low hours and limited use? (or are the flying F-35's really getting worked the same?)
                              If anything, the F-35s are probably being worked harder than the F-22s at the moment since there still aren't enough F-35 airframes to go around. Between ongoing testing and trying to get large numbers of pilots through the training pipeline, F-35s are racking up flight hours quickly.

                              The F-35 costs less to operate and maintain because it was built upon the experience with operating the F-22. It has newer stealth materials that are tougher and easier to maintain.(and reportedly being retrofitted to the F-22 fleet) A single engine rather than a pair, and the fact that the F135 is a further development of the F119 that powers the F-22.

                              The F-35 was designed to cost less to buy and operate so that the US could afford to buy them in large numbers, and so that our allies can afford to operate them at all. Not many countries could afford to field F-22s even if we were willing to sell them.
                              Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 27 Apr 16,, 15:56.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                                The F-35 fleet reached the 50,000 flight hour mark in Feb. 2016.

                                "Flight hours are divided into two main categories: Operational flying hours, flown by 155 jets delivered to six different nations, and System Development and Demonstration (SDD) flight test hours, flown by 18 aircraft assigned to the Integrated Test Forces at Edwards AFB, and NAS Pax River. Of the 50,000 hours, operational jets flew approximately 37,950 hours while SDD aircraft flew 12,050 hours. More than one third of the program’s flight hours were flown in 2015 alone. Among the three variants, approximately 26,000 hours were flown by the F-35A, 18,000 hours by the F-35B and 6,000 by the F-35C."



                                If anything, the F-35s are probably being worked harder than the F-22s at the moment since there still aren't enough F-35 airframes to go around. Between ongoing testing and trying to get large numbers of pilots through the training pipeline, F-35s are racking up flight hours quickly.

                                The F-35 costs less to operate and maintain because it was built upon the experience with operating the F-22. It has newer stealth materials that are tougher and easier to maintain.(and reportedly being retrofitted to the F-22 fleet) A single engine rather than a pair, and the fact that the F135 is a further development of the F119 that powers the F-22.

                                The F-35 was designed to cost less to buy and operate so that the US could afford to buy them in large numbers, and so that our allies can afford to operate them at all. Not many countries could afford to field F-22s even if we were willing to sell them.
                                wow, it amazes me a bit that this doesn't get more coverage as to the actual number of aircraft flying, and just how much they are getting flown. (as you can see, I really had no idea to the actual numbers)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X